Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1887-01-02
THU WABASH CASE
Judge Brewer Orders the Purchasing Com
mittee to Pay Up,
UNKIND CUTS AT JUDGE GRESHAM.
Receiver Cooley to take Possession as Pre-
viOusly Ordered.
JUDGE GRESHAM STANDS FIRM.

ST. LOUIS, January In anticipation
OF IN important expression by Judges
Brewer and Treat on the affairs of the Wa
bash railroad, large numbcrof prominent
railroad officials and attorneys were pres
ent at the opening Of the United States
Circuit Court. Judge Brewer, immedi-
atciy upon the opening of the court, said
that during the last two days the receiver
of the Wabash railroad had reported to the
court the recent decision Of Judge Gresh-
am, and that the court had also received a
petition from the Purchasing Committee,
which hU then proceeded to read. The
petition concluded Us follows. Where
fore, your petitioners pray that this court
will direct all the property purchased by
them rs aforesaid be turned over and de-
liycred to them, and that this court will
prescribe the terms in compliance with
which your petitioners may receive pos
session Of SAID property, and will fix the
time within which your petitioners may eX-
crciSc discretion to receive possession
under the terms OF their said contract, and
TO comply with such orders as this court
and the courts having auxiliary jurisdic.
ton may make
Judge Brewer referred 10 matters in the
history OF this litigation. lie explained
that the Wabash system ran through sew
cral States and the jurisdiction OF several
courts. One general mortgage covered the
entire property, and there were underlying
mortgages upon several local lines which
had become part OF the Wabash system.
Foreclosure proceedings were begun in this
court as the court of primary jurisdiction,
and receivers had been appointed by this
court OF the propriety Of the foreclosure
proceedings in one court operating on the
entire property running through several
States. the validity of the sale under such
proceedings and the completeness Of a
| tide under such sale, there could now
be no doubt. In the case Of Miller
vS. Dows, 81 |. 5, p. Ala,
/ that question WIS put at rest. In the
early history of foreclosure proceedings o
/ this nature, it had been customary, in OF.
/ der to avoid all questions of title, aud tC
preserve the property from dismembcr-
m"nt, that the receivers appointed by the
court O, primary jurisdiction should also
br appointed lay courts az auxiliary juriS
J dictiuu This uad been done in this CaSC
ami the pr, ,rlcty of the appointment o.
. Mc>Srs. Tut and Humphreys had beer
proved 10y their excellent Management
Of the property. As appears iron
certified copies, " Judge Brewer continued
/ presented To us, the Circuit Court ui tn,
/ Seventh Judicial Circuit, diSgcGiTding tn,
comfy that has heretofore existed bcJwecI
/ Federal Courts, has removed those receiver
and has appointed Il distinguished cItizc;
. Of Michigan as their successor for the line
( within thr jurisdiction OF that court. | say
| IN disregard of the comfy which has eN
/ istcd between courts of different circuits
I Tor the pr"teNt Ot enforcing local liens /,
| too transparent to deceive any one, and iO'
/ two reasons there will bcuu lien cXtrndin.
/ through various States without the creation
/ Ia those States OF local liens 10y mortgage
or otherwise; and secondly, Il foreclosure
OF these liens may proceed independent OF
any recciverSbip. That court is Ot equa
/ Jurisdiction with this, and We disclaiml
| any intent OF CrltlClSlng It's action. The
practical question now is, what is to bC
done: 1t is the duty Of this court to st,
that the property left in The
hands of the receivers appointed
by this court is fully protected The
power Of foreclosing the general mortgage
| and of apportioning the receivers ccrtlt
Gates remains with this court, and it is fit
ting that. such apportionment should he
proceeded with at once. In tine decree for
| sale there " no attempt at tOrCclOSing the
underlyil mortgages, and the purchasers
took the property subject to these obliga'
| tiOnS, but did not assume them. The sale
| has been made and the deed for the prop
crtv given, As provided by the decree; the
possession isstill in the receivers, and t.
| be held by them until these obligations ar,
paid or security for their payments given
! We are aware that in the management O
so vast property some time must be takel
in the arrangement ofdctail; but the tlml
is now come when the court shall dcmanC
the payment of these obligations or The
giving OF the security"